Chuck Grimes wrote:
> Of course none of this, in itself, makes Faludi's book irrelevant.
> But I gotta wonder about her grasp of the subject if she sees this as
> a wholly new thing (oddly, it began about the same time she started
> research for her book!). It may have different slightly different
> impetuses and manifestations, but as far as I can tell it's been
> around awhile.
>
> Eric
>
> -----------
>
> How about forever?
I've been a bit puzzled why this debate is even occurring. Faludi's first book, *Backlash*, was a wonderful work of *journalism*. Her attempts at analysis were best passed over politely in silence. This is not too uncommon. Three other fine works of journalism, Joan Smith, *Misognynies* and and Wendy Lesser, *Pictures at an Execution*, and Jerome G. Miller, Search and Destroy: African- American Males in the Criminal Justice System* are of considerable use for what they do give, and it would be silly to argue endlessly over their analytic power or the lack of it.
Does Faludi's new book provide the same kind of useful journalistic material as her first book did? If not, I certainly would not read it for whatever analytic usefulness it might have. The posts so far do not suggest the book contains much in the way of useful information.
Carrol